Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (155320)	1/5/2005 7:07:07 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam invaded Kuwait -- clearcut unilateral aggression. Bush Sr. showed dramatic leadership, and he was brilliant in making sure that the US took action in a way that strengthened the role of the UN as the legitimate vehicle for prosecuting Saddam's naked aggression. Bush Sr. took it as far as he could, and no further at that time. Now, in the long run that leaves us with a problem -- what to do about Saddam. We thought his own people would rise up against him -- and we encouraged that. But when things got scary, we fed them to Saddam's killing machine. The problem festered -- something needed to be done. Going through the UN -- the legitimate route under the circumstances -- was obviously going to be a difficult pain in the ass -- but the alternative (unilateral invasion) would in the long run be far more costly to the US. We chose the quick, easy, and extremely high cost route. We chose a route that was doomed to failure. We chose a path that had gut appeal for some and intellectual appeal to other (neocons), but the choice we made was not the only route available to us, and it has proven to be a very ill-advised route. If it was just Iraq, I would not even care much. But it is a route with far deeper costs and consequences to the US. That is why I bother to object to it strenuously.